coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
5.  The applicant was born in 1966 and is currently detained at Sátoraljaújhely Prison.
6.  On 19 October 2001 he started to serve a prison sentence at Szeged Prison, where he remained until 30 January 2006. According to the applicant, he spent 63 months with eleven other inmates in three different cells (nos. 356, 358 and 215) measuring 27 square metres each, including sanitary facilities. The cells were equipped only with one tap and a toilet, separated from the living area only by a curtain. The dining table was fixed to the floor just a metre away from the toilet. The applicant had a daily one‑hour‑long outdoor activity. The yards were closed premises measuring 40 by 20 metres, about 100-150 persons being taken to the yard at a time.
The applicant was also entitled to thirty minutes’ exercise in the gym three times a week. He attended secondary school classes three times a week, six hours on each occasion.
7.  On 30 January 2006 the applicant was transferred to Budapest Prison Unit “B”, where his cells (nos. 316, 130, 325, 211, and 206) measured 27 square metres and were occupied by him and seven other men (that is, 3.4 square metres gross living space per inmate). The cells had no ventilation system and were infested with parasites. Detainees were permitted to take a shower once a week, according to the applicant, in unhygienic conditions and for no longer than 1-2 minutes.
The applicant was entitled to a daily walk of about one hour in the prison yard measuring 20 by 20 metres. He indicated, however, that he was not able to go outdoors during the period between 20 June 2009 and 12 May 2010 on those days when he was employed as a librarian.
8.  Between 12 May 2010 and 27 May 2011 the applicant continued to serve his sentence in Unit “A” of Budapest Prison. He was kept in five cells described as follows: cell nos. 8, 9 and 141 (8 square metres, three inmates), and cell nos. 3 and 252 (6.5 square metres, two inmates). Only a curtain was used as a partition between the toilet and the living area.
Throughout his detention the applicant had no out-of-cell activities other than a daily one-hour walk in the yard of the prison facility, gym exercise twice a week for about 50 minutes each time and a weekly visit to the library for about 15 minutes.
The inmates were allowed one shower per week. The shower room was equipped with four shower heads. There were about 25 inmates taken to have a shower at the same time, making it impossible to move around because of the sheer number of prisoners.
9.  On 27 May 2011 the applicant was transferred back to Unit “B” of Budapest Prison, where he spent two years in five different cells.
The size of those cells was 27 square metres. The occupancy rate varied between 8 persons (that is, 3.38 square metres gross living space per inmate) and 10 persons (that is 2.7 square metres gross living space per inmate).
10.  Since 16 June 2013 the applicant has been detained at Sátoraljaújhely Prison with three other inmates in a cell measuring 8 square metres.
4.  On 9 August 1995 the Shijak Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited title to a plot of land measuring 1,020 sq. m of which 747 sq. m were restored. Since the remaining plot of land measuring 272 sq. m was occupied, the applicants would be compensated in one of the ways provided for by law.
5.  The Commission decision remains unenforced.
6.  On 8 February 1995 the Shkodër Commission recognised the applicant’s and other heirs’ inherited title to a two-storey building and to a plot of land surrounding the building measuring 500 sq. m.  Since the plot of land measuring 500 sq. m was occupied, the applicant and the heirs would be compensated in one of the ways provided for by law. It was also decided that the building should be restored to them.
7.  The applicant claimed that in 1995 and 1997 he instituted two legal actions against a third party for the vacation and restoration of his property. However, he decided to discontinue those actions, having regard to pending judicial proceedings in other cities. It would appear that the third party has built unauthorised constructions on the applicant’s plot of land.
8.  The Commission decision remains unenforced.
9.  On 12 May 1994 the Shijak Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited title to a plot of land measuring 5,527 sq. m of which 5,000 sq. m were restored. Since the remaining plot of land measuring 527 sq. m was occupied, the applicants would be compensated in one of the ways provided for by law.
10.  The Commission decision remains unenforced.
11.  On 13 August 2007 the Durrës Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited title to a plot of land measuring 65,000 sq. m of which 60,000 sq. m were restored to them. Since the remaining land measuring 5,000 sq. m consisted of arable land, roads and channels (“e llojit arë, rrugë e kanale”) was occupied, the applicants would be compensated in one of the ways provided for by law.
12.  The Commission decision remains unenforced.
5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lived prior to his arrest and conviction in the Perm region. He is currently serving a prison sentence in a correctional colony in the Yamalo-Nenetskiy Autonomous region.
6.  On 20 February 2005 the police arrested the applicant on suspicion of triple murder and attempted murder.
7.  On 21 February 2005 Chusovskiy District Court of the Perm Region ordered that he be placed in detention. The applicant remained in a temporary detention facility in the town of Chusovo until his conviction in June 2005.
8.  On 21 June 2005 the Perm Regional Court found the applicant guilty of triple murder and attempted murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
9.  The applicant was represented by state-appointed counsel at the investigation stage and before the first-instance court.
10.  On 29 June 2005 the applicant appealed against his conviction to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (“the Supreme Court”).
11.  On 14 November 2005, while he was detained in Moscow remand prison no. 2, the applicant asked the Supreme Court to appoint legal counsel to defend him during the appeal proceedings. He also asked to meet counsel prior to the appeal hearing in order to prepare his defence. His request of 14 November 2005 was registered in the register of outgoing correspondence of the remand prison. According to the Government, the applicant’s request never reached the Supreme Court and has therefore not been examined.
12.  On 18 November 2005 the Supreme Court examined the applicant’s appeal. The applicant was not assisted by legal counsel at the appeal hearing. The Government acknowledged that the appeal court had not taken measures to ensure that the applicant be provided with free legal assistance for the appeal hearing. The Supreme Court heard the applicant and the prosecutor and modified the legal classification of the applicant’s action. However, that modification had no impact on the applicant’s sentence.
5.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Budapest.
6.  On 28 June 2011 the applicant, a retired army general, was apprehended on charges of spying.
On 1 July 2011 the court placed him under house arrest. Upon the prosecution’s appeal, his pre-trial detention was ordered on 14 July 2011 for fear of absconding. He was detained at Budapest Penitentiary’s Maglódi Facility. He submitted that while he had been in detention, the prison staff had very often switched on the light in his cell disturbing his night rest.
The applicant’s requests for release were to no avail, although he demonstrated that he could have absconded during the house arrest but had not. In the face of his arguments that he had no criminal history, was nearly 60 years old with a settled background and family situation, the court insisted on the argument that, because of his connections abroad, there was a risk that he might nevertheless abscond.
7.  On 30 September 2011 the investigation was terminated and the case file presented to the applicant and his lawyer.
8.  On 11 November 2011 the Military Bench of the Budapest Court of Appeal quashed a previous detention order of the Military Bench of the Budapest High Court and remitted the case to it. In the applicant’s view, this was procedurally incorrect, since the Court of Appeal should have decided on the merits, rather than remitting the case.
9.  The applicant was in pre-trial detention until 6 April 2012. After that date, he was under house arrest again until 13 March 2013. Subsequently, he was released but restricted to the village of Szada.
10.  The applicant unsuccessfully filed requests for release on 27 July and 30 September 2011. Moreover, on 14 November 2011, 9 January and 7 November 2012 and 1 March 2013 he unsuccessfully appealed against the court decisions prolonging the pre-trial detention or house arrest.
11.  According to the applicant – a submission uncontested by the Government – the orders prolonging the coercive measures reiterated, in a rather stereotypical manner, the risk of his absconding, although without specifying any particular risk other than his foreign connections. Moreover, whenever prolongation motions or requests for release were decided on in oral proceedings, the prosecution’s motions were communicated to the defence only at the hearing, not before. Whenever the decisions prolonging the coercive measure were adopted without a court session, that is, in written proceedings, the prosecutorial motions had not been served to the defence at all.
12.  On 5 July 2013 the applicant was convicted of spying and sentenced to two years and 10 months’ imprisonment. The procedure appears to be still pending.
5.  The applicants were born in 1957, 1984, 1989 and 1991, respectively, and live in Novi Pazar.
6.  The applicants’ late wife and mother, Ms Sadija Ljajić was employed by “Raška” Holding kompanija AD Novi Pazar (hereinafter “the debtor”), which was, at the relevant time, a company predominantly comprised of socially-owned capital.
7.  On 14 December 2005 the Municipal Court (Opštinski sud) in Novi Pazar ordered the debtor to pay Ms Sadija Ljajić certain amount on account of salary arrears and social insurance contributions, plus the costs of the civil proceedings.
8.  On 10 October 2006, upon Ms Ljajić’s request to that effect, the Municipal Court in Novi Pazar ordered the enforcement of the judgment of 14 December 2005 by means of a bank transfer and ordered the debtor to pay Ms Ljajić the enforcement costs.
9.  On 24 April 2013 Ms Sadija Ljajić passed away. On 9 September 2013 the Novi Pazar First Instance Court issued a decision declaring Mr Fuad Ljajić as the sole inheritor of late Sadija Ljajić.
10.  In view of these facts, the applicants’ representative informed the Court that Ms Alma Ljajić, Mr Ertan Ljajić and Ms Samra Ljajić no longer intend to pursue their application before the Court.
11.  On 25 October 2013 the Commercial Court (Trgovinski sud) in Kraljevo opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor (St. 17/2013). On 5 January 2014 Mr Fuad Ljajić submitted his claims for the payment of the amount ordered by the judgment of 14 December 2005. The insolvency proceedings are still pending.
5.  On 13 October 2008 the applicant’s son, Mr Ry., was found dead in the pond which he had been guarding as a night watchman.
6.  On the following day a post-mortem examination was completed. It concluded that Mr Ry. had drowned. A number of bruises and sores were discovered on his chest. The expert assessed those injuries as insignificant and considered that they had been inflicted by blunt hard objects.
7.  During the period from October 2008 to February 2013 the police refused to institute criminal proceedings in respect of the death fifteen times. All those rulings were quashed by the prosecution authorities or the courts for superficiality and incompleteness of the investigation undertaken.
8.  On 7 February 2013, following the entry into force of the new Code of Criminal Procedure in November 2012, the case was registered in the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations.
9.  Thereafter the police terminated the criminal investigation twice having found that there was no indication of a homicide. Both those decisions were quashed.
10.  As of April 2014 the pre-trial investigation was ongoing.
11.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Rome.
12.  In 2002 she had recourse to assisted reproduction techniques, undergoing in vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment with her partner at the Centre for reproductive medicine at the European Hospital (“the centre”) in Rome. The five embryos obtained from the IVF treatment were placed in cryopreservation.
13.  Before the embryos could be implanted the applicant’s partner died, on 12 November 2003, in a bomb attack in Nasiriya (Iraq) while he was reporting on the war.
14.  After deciding not to have the embryos implanted, the applicant sought to donate them to scientific research and thus contribute to promoting advances in treatment for diseases that are difficult to cure.
15.  According to the information provided at the hearing before the Grand Chamber, the applicant made a number of unsuccessful verbal requests for release of the embryos at the centre where they were being stored.
16.  In a letter of 14 December 2011, the applicant asked the Director of the centre to release the five cryopreserved embryos so that they could be used for stem-cell research. The Director refused to comply with her request on the ground that this type of research was banned and punishable as a criminal offence in Italy under section 13 of Law no. 40 of 19 February 2004 (“Law no. 40/2004”).
17.  The embryos in question are currently stored in the cryogenic storage bank at the centre where the IVF treatment was carried out.
4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Budapest.
5.  The applicant was serving as a judge at the Budapest Labour Court and at the Pest Central District Court. In September 2003 the employer pursued the applicant’s appraisal which resulted in the applicant’s inadequacy for judicial service. From 1 July 2004 the applicant continued working as judicial secretary. The employer ordered further appraisals of the applicant in the forthcoming months. The applicant contested the grounds and the results of these appraisals.
6.  The applicant initiated labour lawsuit against her employer on 25 March 2005. On 15 December 2008 the Székesfehérvár Labour Court partly found for the applicant, however, it dismissed the overwhelming part of her claim.
7.  On appeal, the Fejér County Court upheld the judgment on 30 September 2009.
8.  The applicant challenged the judgment before the Supreme Court which upheld the judgment on 17 January 2011.
4.  The applicants were born in 1948 and live in Budapest.
5.  The applicants have had a long-lasting legal dispute with a housing cooperative and two individuals in respect of ownership right to a real property. The applicants’ several claims for title were dismissed by the competent courts.
6.  The applicants lodged an action in damages against the housing cooperative and the two individuals on 15 October 2002.
7.  The procedure was suspended on 17 December 2004 for eighteen months due to other pending proceedings before the land registry authority.
8.  Subsequently, after several hearings, the first-instance court partly found for the applicants on 9 March 2010.
9.  On appeal, the Budapest Court of Appeal reversed the judgment and dismissed the applicants’ claim on 30 November 2010.
4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Komló.
5.   On 19 February 2003 the applicant was interrogated as suspect of forgery of private documents.
6.  The Public Prosecutor preferred a bill of indictment on 8 October 2004. Subsequently, on 27 June 2005 the Public Prosecutor extended the charges against the applicant with charge of fraud.
7.  In the ensuing criminal proceedings on 23 March 2010 the Komló District Court acquitted the applicant in respect of fraud and found him guilty in forgery of private documents.
8.  On appeal of the Public Prosecutor, the Baranya County Court reversed the judgment and acquitted the applicant in respect of all charges on 20 May 2011.
4.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Győr.
5.  The applicant’s ex-husband initiated civil lawsuit before Győr District Court against the applicant for dissolution of marital property and for return of present on 21 February 2003.
6.  The court separated the claim to two proceedings and dismissed the claimant’s claim in respect of the return of present.
7.  Subsequently, after several hearings, the first-instance court delivered the judgment in respect of dissolution of the marital property on 13 January 2010.
8.  On appeal, the Budapest Court of Appeal delivered the final and binding judgment on 7 July 2011 amending the first-instance judgment in several aspects.
9.  Both the applicant and the claimant challenged the judgment before the Supreme Court which upheld the judgment on 2 October 2012.
4.  The applicant company is a shipping company in liquidation incorporated under Greek Law in 1991, with its legal seat in Kallithea, Greece.
5.  On 13 March 1995 the Vlora District Court decided that the applicant company’s vessel had been unlawfully seized. This decision was upheld on appeal and it became final at the latest on 1 August 1995.
6.  On 1 December 1995 the applicant company brought a civil action against the local Treasury office (“Seksioni i Financës - Dega e Thesarit Vlorë”), the district prosecutor’s office (“Prokuroria e Rrethit Vlorë”) and the local Customs Administration (“Dogana e Rrethit Vlorë”), seeking compensation in respect of the damage caused by the unlawful seizure. The Customs Administration lodged a counter action requesting payment of expenses for keeping the vessel.
7.  On 4 July 1996 the Vlora District Court dismissed both civil actions.
8.  On 14 November 1996 the Tirana Court of Appeal quashed that decision. It ordered the local Treasury office to pay the applicant company 1,621,575 United States dollars (“USD”) for damages. It further ordered the applicant company to pay the Customs Administration USD 333,120 to cover the expenses incurred for the keeping of the vessel.
9.  On 30 July 1997 the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision. After this had become final, on 27 October 1997 an enforcement writ was issued at the request of the applicant company.
10.  On 22 April 1999 the Customs Administration and the district prosecutor lodged a request for supervisory review (“rekurs në interes të ligjit”) against the Supreme Court’s decision. On 29 March 2000 the Supreme Court requested the appellants to resubmit the request as well as supplementary documents. On 28 April 2000 the appellants resubmitted the request. It would appear that the request was never examined by the Supreme Court.
11.  On three occasions, namely on 10 November 1999, in 2003 and on 21 June 2006 the applicant company requested the bailiff to enforce the Court of Appeal’s decision, as upheld by the Supreme Court. It accordingly paid the bailiff tax in part.
12.  On 8 August 2000 the bailiff discontinued the enforcement proceedings, having regard to the impossibility of the Savings Bank to freeze the local Treasury’s bank account.
13.  On 3 February 2005 the applicant company withdrew its enforcement request.
14.  From 2006 to 2008 the bailiff unsuccessfully sought the enforcement of the decision from the local Treasury office and the Ministry of Finance. The bailiff further fined the director of the local Treasury office for failure to enforce the decision. On 10 March 2008 it discontinued the enforcement on the grounds that the enforcement writ did not specify the nature of the obligation that had to be enforced and the applicant company had failed to pay the bailiff tax in full.
15.  To date, the final decision remains unenforced.
5.  The applicant was born in 1992.
6.  On 8 May 2013 he was arrested on suspicion of sexual abuse and indecent behaviour towards two children.
7.  On 10 May 2013 an investigating judge of the Z. County Court (Županijski sud u Z. –“the County Court”) ordered his pre-trial detention under Article 123 § 1(2) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of collusion and reoffending).
8.  On 17 May 2013 the applicant appealed. On 21 May 2013 a three-judge panel of the County Court dismissed his appeal as ill-founded, upholding the decision of the investigating judge.
9.  On 6 June 2013 the investigating judge extended the applicant’s detention under Article 123 § 1(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of reoffending) on the grounds that he might commit the same offences against the victims again if at large.
10.  The applicant appealed on 12 June 2013, arguing that there was no reason to suspect that he had committed the offences at issue and alleging numerous procedural flaws when his pre-trial detention was extended.
11.  On 14 June 2013 a three-judge panel of the County Court dismissed the appeal as ill-founded, endorsing the view of the investigating judge. The decision was served on the applicant’s representative on 26 June 2013.
12.  On 5 July 2013 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) against the decision of 14 June 2013, challenging the decisions on his pre-trial detention. He argued, in particular, that they lacked the relevant reasoning, and that the procedure for ordering and extending pre-trial detention had not been duly complied with.
13.  On 8 July 2013 the applicant was indicted in the Z. Municipal Criminal Court (Općinski kazneni sud u Z. –“the Municipal Court”) on charges of sexual abuse and indecent behaviour towards two children.
14.  On the same day a three-judge panel of that court extended his pre-trial detention under Article 123 § 1(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of reoffending). The decision was served on the applicant’s representative on 15 July 2013.
15.  On 10 July 2013 the applicant challenged the decision by lodging an appeal with the County Court, arguing that it lacked the relevant reasoning and alleging procedural flaws in the Municipal Court’s conduct.
16.  On the same day the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s complaint of 5 July 2013 (see paragraph 12 above) inadmissible, on the grounds that a new decision on his detention had since been adopted (see paragraph 14 above) and he was no longer being detained in connection with the decision complained about.
17.  The Constitutional Court’s decision was served on the applicant’s representative on 18 July 2013.
18.  On 19 July 2013 a three-judge panel of the County Court, in its examination of the applicant’s appeal of 10 July 2013 (see paragraph 15 above), quashed the decision of 8 July 2013 extending the applicant’s pre-trial detention and remitted the case to the Municipal Court for re-examination.
19.  On 22 July 2013 a three-judge panel of that court released the applicant from detention, imposing a number of conditions on his release.